Lawsuit claims Diocese of Corpus Christi let known child molester serve as a priest

by Jeffrey Nadrich Managing Partner, Nadrich & Cohen, LLP

A lawsuit filed and currently active in Arizona superior court claims that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Corpus Christi knew Father Clement Hageman had sexually abused children and still let him work as a priest.

The lawsuit was filed by an anonymous, married man who lives in Yavapai County, Arizona. The complaint claims that Hageman “engaged in unpermitted sexual contact with” the plaintiff in “approximately 1964,” when the plaintiff was 11 years old.

Complaint alleges diocese knew about Hageman’s history of abuse

The complaint states that the Bishop of the Diocese of Corpus Christi allowed Hageman to serve as a priest in Arizona under his authority around 1940.

“By 1939, other priests of the Diocese of Corpus Christi learned that Father Clement Hageman was sexually abusing boys,” the complaint says. The complaint references an April 24, 1939 letter from a priest to a bishop apologizing for the “sad facts of his case,” assuring the bishop there was “no public knowledge of the affair at all” and he was “keeping the boys concerned as close to me as possible.” The priest told the bishop he did “not feel that [Hageman] will overcome his weakness.”

The complaint references a September 23, 1940 letter from a bishop to another bishop saying Hageman could not “brace himself against his besetting sin (cum pueris),” which the complaint claims means Latin for playing with boys.

The complaint references a December 16, 1940 letter from a the Bishop of the Diocese of Gallup to the Bishop of Corpus Christi which states that “on September 23, 1939, the Bishop of Corpus Christi banished Father Clement Hageman, and he answered that he was guilty of playing with boys. Of course this did not sound good to me.”

The complaint notes that the Bishop of Corpus Christi responded in a telegram to the Bishop of Gallup on December 21, 1940, “confirming that Hageman sexually abused boys, but [suggesting] to the Bishop of Gallup to try him out.”

General allegations

The complaint claims that “the culture of the Catholic Church over Plaintiff created pressure on Plaintiff not to report the abuse Plaintiff suffered.”

The lawsuit states that by assigning Hageman to positions, the Bishop of Corpus Christi represented to the public that “Hageman had the requisite moral, spiritual, emotional and intellectual qualities to serve” at positions authorized by the diocese.

The diocese was “negligent in allowing Father Clement Hageman into the diocese and was negligent in allowing Father Clement Hageman to serve in the diocese because the Diocese of Corpus Christi knew, should have known, and/or was deliberately ignorant that Father Clement Hageman posed an unreasonable risk of harm to Catholic children,” the complaint alleges.

The diocese knew, should have known and/or was deliberately ignorant that Hageman “engaged in sexual misconduct and was not fit to work as a priest,” the complaint argues.

Complaint claims diocese covered up Hageman’s history of abuse

The complaint claims that the diocese “engaged in a pattern and practice of transferring pedophile priests… in an attempt to cover up clergy sexual misconduct,” claiming the diocese intentionally transferred Hageman to Arizona where his “history of sexual misconduct was not known and not likely to be discovered.”

The complaint claims this practice is “in keeping with the official and unofficial policies of the Roman Catholic Church,” which maintains “a culture of secrecy and concealment in all matters involving the sexual misdeeds of priests and clerics,” according to the complaint.

The complaint argues the diocese kept the news of Hageman’s sexual abuse and propensity to abuse children from students and church members, including the plaintiff and his family. The complaint states the diocese did this because they were following the orders of the Roman Catholic Church “requiring that all matters and details regarding clergy sexual abuse be kept absolutely secret.”

The complaint argues the diocese allowed Hageman to be transferred to a new assignment without disclosing his history of sexual abuse because they were following the Roman Catholic Church’s orders.

Priest abuse lawsuit damages

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages based on numerous causes of action, including:

Sexual assault / sexual abuse / sexual conduct with a minor: The lawsuit claims that Hageman “intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently engaged in sexual contact with” the plaintiff. The lawsuit claims that, because of this abuse, the plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer shock, great pain of body and mind, embarrassment, emotional distress, disgrace, loss of self-esteem, anger, humiliation, frustration, rage, loss of consortium, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of love and affection, medical bills and sexual dysfunction.

Negligence: The complaint argues that the diocese owed the plaintiff a special duty to protect him from injury, a special duty stemming from the special relationship the diocese and the plaintiff shared arising from the high degree of vulnerability of children entrusted to the care of the diocese.

The diocese “had a duty to establish measures of protection not necessary for persons who are older and better able to safeguard themselves,” the complaint states.

The complaint argues that the diocese breached this duty by allowing Hageman to serve as a priest and have access to the plaintiff despite knowing about his past history of sexual abuse. The diocese “negligently deemed that Father Clement Hageman was fit to work with children” despite knowing of his history of abuse, according to the complaint.

Negligent training and supervision of employees: The complaint argues that the diocese had a duty to train and educate employees, and establish policies and procedures, to detect, prevent and address inappropriate conduct between clerics and children, and failed in this duty.

The complaint states the diocese was “negligent in failing to supervise” Hageman.

Negligent retention of employees: The complaint states that the diocese “negligently retained Father Clement Hageman with knowledge of” his propensity for sexually abusing boys.

“Defendants negligently retained Father Clement Hageman in a position where he had access to children and could foreseeably cause harm,” the complaint states.

Breach of fiduciary duty: The complaint argues that the diocese was a fiduciary to the plaintiff and therefore owed the plaintiff a duty to work solely for his benefit. The complaint states that the diocese breached this duty.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress: The complaint argues that the diocese’s conduct exceeded “the bounds of decency” and was “extreme and outrageous,” causing the plaintiff “to suffer severe emotional and psychological distress.”

Endangerment: The complaint states that the diocese “attempted to conceal and cover-up Father Clement Hageman’s sexual deviancy and sexual abuse of children to avoid scandal,” arguing that this endangered the plaintiff.

Child abuse: “Under circumstances likely to produce serious and significant physical and psychological injury and while Plaintiff was under the care and custody of all Defendants, Defendants and each of them negligently, recklessly, and or intentionally caused, permitted, allowed, and/or established patterns, practices, customs, and traditions that placed Plaintiff in a situation in which sexual abuse was likely to occur,” the complaint states.

Assault: The complaint states that Hageman, as an agent or employee of the diocese, acting within the course and scope of his authority, “intentionally, knowingly, recklessly and/or negligently placed Plaintiff in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury.”

About the author

Jeffrey Nadrich is the managing partner of Nadrich & Cohen, LLP, a California personal injury law firm which represents priest abuse victims.

Sponsor Ads

• Ad Space Available - Rent it Now!

Created on Oct 18th 2020 17:33. Viewed 254 times.

Comments